Could Sherlock Unravel A Complex Military Defeat ?

[Truthhunter]

I've been studying everything from the battle itself, to the main participants, the strategy, etc., to the lack of proper investigation of the British defeat of over 1,000 men at Isandhlwana camp in the early stages of the Anglo-Zulu War 1879 by 20,000 Zulu warriors.

 

The (mock) COI was manipulated by the commander of British forces to reach an agreeable conclusion for the British Government and Royalty back home, which in turn, damned the senior officer in command of the British camp at Isandhlwana.

 

Col. A.W. Durnford, Royal Engineers, was admirably defended by his brother Edward post-Isandhlwana, but he was taking on both the military establishment and others in political positions, therefore was always going to fail, no matter the truthful evidence he presented.

 

I've made my own deductions and study of law, but lack support but from a few trustworthy souls.

 

All along, I wished to follow Sherlock's amazing gifts and Dr Watson's military (and medical) experience, to guide me to a satisfactory end.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I think Sherlock could unravel the problem....but of course, the Zulu's had the home advantage. They knew the territory and terrain by heart. Also they could use guerrilla warfare. Where the British of course would be by the book soldiers, no matter how well trained and brave and stead fast they would always be at the disadvantage in such situations. Even now, the military in Iraq and Iraq are making glaring mistakes. Putting camps in the middle of enemy territory in valleys giving the high ground not only to the enemy....but to an enemy who know the terrain and how to use it to their advantage. And they do with disastrous results every time.

 

  Then there were the shear weight of numbers and the determination of the Zulu warriors.  The British were outnumbered, 1,000 against 20,000? The Zulu's understood that many of them would die but in the end they would be taking their enemy with them and that's all that mattered. They would not, could not lose this fight.

[Truthhunter]

Yes, I agree he could sort out the data, which consisted of maps, written orders, conflicting accounts, and most of all, the dubious characters that were involved before, during and after the battle itself.

 

They are colourful to say the least, and not without their dark sides. Holmes would read them instantly, in so doing, will know that the game is afoot, and not all is as clear as the military high command would like the politicians, royalty and public to believe.

 

Oh, to have the great man himself be on the case to clear the good Col. Durnford's name, with the help of the latter's brother.

 

The accounts of isandhlwana in the aftermath then and now would have been so different.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Nothing worse then the politicians thinking they know how to fight a war....they never do.

[Truthhunter]

Dr Watson could have been of great help too, as on campaign, when a camp is to be sited, Queens Regs state that the senior doctor present should be consulted on its location, in order to prevent the spread of disease through water contamination, etc.

 

This wasn't done at Isandhlwana, where the senior medical officer Shepherd was present.

 

If he had had his say, the camp would not have been placed how it was.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Any officer worth his salt should have known better. Their over confidence and arrogance would also work against them. Just because a people appear to be primitive does not mean they don't know how to fight and use strategy to their own advantage.

[Truthhunter]

The core of the problem was the powers-that-be wanted Isandhlwana to be known as a British defeat, not a Zulu victory brought about by the latter's generalship, bravery and strategy.

 

Therefore, in their opinion, the loss occurred due to mismanagement of the forces left to defend the camp by the senior officer in command, as in Col. Durnford, who had only just arrived from Rorke's Drift about one hour before the engagement began.

 

The overall commander, Lord Chelmsford, needed to detract from the fact, that he had taken half of No.3 Column based at Isandhlwana further into Zululand, leaving the camp lacking the necessary amount of men required to defend what was a very large camp, minus any sort of defensive measures, even though it was known thousands of Zulus were in the vicinity, but not yet located.

 

Out of this was born a cover-up, conspiracy and the scapegoating of Col. Durnford, RE.

[Truthhunter]

Maiwand which happened a year later, which Dr Watson had survived, was a British disaster of almost the exact same circumstances where the British line had been turned and broken, causing survivors to flee along a battlefield fugitives route to try and get to safety.

 

References have been made to a Court Of Inquiry being held in the aftermath, but as yet, no historian has managed to track down the transcript, which should have been on official record and stored in military archives.

 

So, both Isandhlwana and Maiwand were terrible defeats for the British, but both had no official record of a proper investigation into the events.

[Truthhunter]

As an aside, having recently made several important notes relevant to my so-called investigation, they lacked at heading, which not long before I joined this forum, I titled my notes 'Sherlock Holmes And The Kangaroo Court Mystery' obviously putting myself in the role of S.H.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

The military have been making the same mistake since at least the Crusades if not before.  The last Frankish Levantine king marched out of  Jerusalem in the height of summer....in armor....no water to face an enemy who knew where the water was....and to take and hold it. He left behind less then a hundred able fighting men and only one or two Crusaders to hold the city. But there is one difference. Jerusalem was a walled camp and defensible. Even though the Crusader army was utterly destroyed, Jerusalem was held for close to two weeks by barely a hundred men. When Jerusalem was handed over to Saladin and his forces there was no slaughter.

 

 As I said above, the military continues to make those same glaring mistakes. It should be ROTC 101...you never make a camp that is not fully defendable. Ever. Period.  Custer made the same mistake. He knew there where thousands of Lakota and Cheyenne in the area. But he thought it was going to be a cake walk. He took most of his family with him. He ignored the advice of his seasoned scouts and let himself be led into the ambush.

 

Poor planning....over confidence in the face of the enemy and underestimating the fighting capabilities of the enemy you're facing. It's text book classic.

[Truthhunter]

On your mentioning of Gen Custer at Little Bighorn 1876, even though there actually was/and is published 'The Reno Court Of Inquiry' covering the events on the battlefield, an author, much like creating a fictional investigation of Isandhlwana, wrote a novel called 'The Court Martial Of George Armstrong Custer' by Douglas C. Jones, which tells a story based on the discovery of a wounded Gen Custer on the battlefield, who, once recovered, is put on trial for the loss of his command.

 

An interesting concept indeed.

 

Though, rather than a courtroom scenario, it would be fascinating to have Sherlock himself pursuing all leads in the Isandhlwana aftermath, to see what, if any, conclusions he came to, aided by his good friend Watson.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

With all your background research.....you're a good candidate to tackle that story as was done in the case of Einstein's daughter. Which really didn't do anything to clear up the mystery..but it's a Sherlock Holmes story.     And yes Reno did face court and was found....erroneously....guilty of desertion. His name has been cleared since then of course far to late to do him personally any good. But that's what happens sometimes.

[Truthhunter]

I dare say that my title should be altered to 'Sherlock Holmes And The Kangaroo Court Conspiracy' being that is the case in point, no mystery, but definitely a cover-up that goes up to the highest of ranks involved and spreads tentacles all the way to the supreme British authority in Natal.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Well yes, there is a bit of a mystery.....where are the transcripts? Destroyed?  In someone's strong box? There should have been copies going out to different officials....where are they all?

[Truthhunter]

That is a fair point. To define it, I guess, the mystery involves the knowledge of details that are known to exist but are missing, but when such details go missing, or remain hidden to the public, or are contorted somewhat to conceal truth, by not one but many sources, military, political, maybe even higher, does the definition of mystery change to conspiracy by the obvious fact that something is amiss, yet knowingly connected to a specific person/event, involving numerous individuals/organisations ?

 

Is the solving of the initial mystery (missing documents, concealed/undisclosed information, contorted accounts, etc.,) then cleared somewhat, when the facts lead to the conclusion a cover-up has taken place, therefore a conspiracy is then the known conclusion ?

 

Therefore, the reason for the mystery is solved, but the proving of what it has led to remains to be investigated ?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Another question is why hide the facts in the first place? Why put all the blame on one man while protecting the reputation of another?  The basic facts are known. The results are certainly transparent.  Why was there a need for cover up and conspiracy?  Mistakes are made all the time.....hence the oxymoron, military intelligence.

[Truthhunter]

Absolutely. When you know the circumstances of Isandhlwana, it is obvious from the outset, that the 1,000 defenders, made up of soldiers, Colonial volunteers and native auxiliaries, stood zero chance against the 20,000 warriors that encircled the whole camp.

 

There lies the point in question - if the camp was doomed from the beginning, no matter what was said and done by the defenders,

why resort to blaming the senior officer in command of the camp, who had only just arrived, for its downfall ?

 

This created the suspicion, that somehow by focussing solely on the events at Isandhlwana, other events and decisions being made elsewhere were being diverted from, which mainly involved Lord Chelmsford himself, and others of high status.

 

Moreover, the decision to invade Zululand was not made by the British Government, but decided on by the Governor of Natal, Sir Bartle Frere, without permission, taking it upon himself to send thousands of British soldiers into Zululand.

 

There you must also question, as I have, that if this was the case, being that the British Government knew nothing about the invasion until after it happened and only really after the defeat at Isandhlwana, then would the invasion be termed an illegal act of war ?

 

As you can see, the defeat at Isandhlwana and the blaming of Col. Durnford was only part of a much larger conspiracy.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

You mentioned in your first post that this was the early stages of an Anglo-Zulu war.  It sounds to me like it was an attempted land grab by the Governor of Sir Bartle Frere an invasion of the Zulu's in incite them to uprising then, when the superior fire power and training of the British overwhelmed the "savages" then the Governor could have planned to claim the Zulu territory as the spoils of conquest. It's a common enough practice even in this day and age.

[Truthhunter]

Indeed. However, both Frere and Chelmsford thought they would be dealing with a similar tribe to others they had fought, but they didn't know that the Zulus were vastly different to anything else they had already encountered in Africa.

 

Therefore, when their plan backfired only a couple of weeks into the invasion, with the massacre of hundreds of men at Isandhlwana, the cover-up began almost immediately.

 

Col. Durnford was a sacrificial pawn in the deadly game of politics.

 

Edward Durnford took up the cause in his brother's defence, asking awkward questions about those involved and writing letters to everyone who played their own role in events or were in a position to help, demanding an official Court Of Inquiry was held in order to clear his brother's name, but he was up against the major players of the era, and despite his best efforts, didn't succeed.

 

Hence, the stain on his brother's reputation remains to this day, with apparently only a few, myself included, still fighting the good fight, by doing our own investigations, by studying and raising points of interest, hoping towards a successful end.

 

However, as stated, we could do with the assistance of Sherlock Holmes.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

As long as you're not giving up. If the people like Reno and the so called witches of Salem can gain a full pardon then why not Col. Durnford?  But why exactly does Sherlock Homes come into this?  Unless he could find missing documents as in the Naval Treaty, the Bruce-Partington Plans and the Second Stain?

[Truthhunter]

Obviously Sherlock Holmes' abilities are second to none, his cases covering subjects right across the board. This investigation, had Edward Durnford approached him with his own knowledge and acquired materials/accounts, might have been seen as not only a challenge to Holmes, but maybe considered it his duty to assist in the restoration of an honourable officer's reputation, who was killed in action alongside many of his fellow countrymen in their heroic defence of the Isandhwana camp.

 

Dr. Watson, himself an ex-military man, who survived a similar engagement a year later against overwhelming odds, might have convinced his friend to undertake the case, understanding the concept of a no-win situation, and appreciating the significance of honour to a military officer and in turn his family.

 

Sherlock's interviewing of those involved, he would have found enlightening, as well as intriguing, as I'm sure he'd find many of the answers unsatisfactory, conflicting with several accounts by others.

 

As for what he could accomplish, only a man such as Holmes would know that.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I'm not totally convinced that this would be something "up Sherlock's street".  In the cases I mentioned above, England's Homeland Security was at stake. Some kind of immediate threat to hearth and home. This....not so much. As for John, he knew war, the mistakes made at any and all levels. He himself said that he had seen men die. Good men. Friends. But unfortunately....that is the nature of violence and of war. People get hurt...and die.

 

 Yes, perhaps Durnford was a scapegoat. He was also the commanding officer of the camp even if very shortly. In the way of the military the commanding officer must carry the brunt of all failures. Whether his own or someone elses under his command.

 

England was an world force, an empire. Unfortunately one does not blissfully take over the world and acquire land by simply sitting in the parlor and making treaties over a cup of tea. It's take forceful action and if there are natives living on the land that one feels entitled to...then to bad for them...they were simply in the way. But the Zulu had a right to fight back...and even if the camp was a set up by the Governor, the British army was playing along or they wouldn't have agreed to follow those orders. they wouldn't have established the camp in the first place and wouldn't have agreed to push further into Zulu territory.

 

Maybe if Durnford had had the time to asses the situation he might have moved the camp or made it more defensible. Sadly we may never know. So no, Sherlock may not feel that this is something worthy of his attention. He did accuse John of invading Afghanistan but he didn't make a big issue of it....in fact they chuckled over it.

[Truthhunter]

Yes, it's quite likely to be out of his area of expertise, being also within the confines of military circles might have been difficult for even Holmes to get at any records, archives, etc.

 

In such a case, an (independent?) military investigator of identical qualities as Sherlock would have been invaluable, able to go to areas not open to the public, or even the civilian police forces, as most matters back then I'm sure were dealt with internally.

 

In fact, that is definitely the case of what really happened, all behind closed doors, and remains so to this day.

 

I wonder if there was ever a military sleuth of Sherlock's ilk at work in that era, either in fact or fiction ?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I'm not saying it was beyond him....not at all. If he truly was "A Queen's Messenger" then all those doors would certainly have been open to him through Mycroft as the "British  Government".  All I am saying is that he may not have had the interest. The workings of the world held little interest to him unless it was dealing with the criminal elements.  This even was on a continent far away from England. His cases kept him close to home. Once in a while into Europe but rarely.

 

What the governor did may have been illegal but it was accepted by the English military or they wouldn't have allowed the camp to stand or to be armed by British soldiers.

[Truthhunter]

The Governor of Natal was the only one in touch with the Government back home, by letter, as the telegraph wasn't available then, so mail to and from places could take weeks.

 

The Commander-in-Chief of British forces in Natal, was somewhat complicit in the invasion plans, therefore no questions were raised in the legality of the invasion.

 

Mycroft, on the other hand, would have been in a very difficult position whether to help Sherlock or not, as in the aftermath of Isandhlwana and with knowledge of the invasion, the British Government, in order to prevent a scandal of epic proportions, instead of withdrawing the British forces, sent reinforcements in great numbers, after being pressured by the public on hearing of the deaths of hundreds of their family members, to avenge them.